British Journal of DOI:10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01250.

BJP Pharmacology
www.brjpharmacol.org

Themed Issue: Respiratory Pharmacology

Correspondence
Anthony RM Coates, Medical

REVIEW bph_1250 184..194

Microbiology, Centre for
Infection, Department of Clinical
Sciences, St George’s, University
of London, Cranmer Terrace,
Novel classes of antibiotics London SW17 ORE, UK. E-mail:
acoates@sgul.ac.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------

or more of the same? Keywords

novel antibiotics; bacterial
infections; antibiotic resistance;
Anthony RM Coates1, Gerry Halls2 and Yanmin Hu1 genomics; non-culturable
bacteria; bacteriophages;
1 non-multiplying bacteria;
Medical Microbiology, Centre for Infection, Department of Clinical Sciences, St George’s,
multiplying bacteria
University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK and 2Medical Marketing Services, ----------------------------------------------------------------
Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, UK Received
29 December 2010
Revised
13 January 2011
Accepted
14 January 2011

The world is running out of antibiotics. Between 1940 and 1962, more than 20 new classes of antibiotics were marketed.
Since then, only two new classes have reached the market. Analogue development kept pace with the emergence of resistant
bacteria until 10–20 years ago. Now, not enough analogues are reaching the market to stem the tide of antibiotic resistance,
particularly among gram-negative bacteria. This review examines the existing systemic antibiotic pipeline in the public
domain, and reveals that 27 compounds are in clinical development, of which two are new classes, both of which are in
Phase I clinical trials. In view of the high attrition rate of drugs in early clinical development, particularly new classes and the
current regulatory hurdles, it does not seem likely that new classes will be marketed soon. This paper suggests that, if the
world is to return to a situation in which there are enough antibiotics to cope with the inevitable ongoing emergence of
bacterial resistance, we need to recreate the prolific antibiotic discovery period between 1940 and 1962, which produced 20
classes that served the world well for 60 years. If another 20 classes and their analogues, particularly targeting gram-negatives
could be produced soon, they might last us for the next 60 years. How can this be achieved? Only a huge effort by
governments in the form of finance, legislation and providing industry with real incentives will reverse this. Industry needs to
re-enter the market on a much larger scale, and academia should rebuild its antibiotic discovery infrastructure to support this
effort. The alternative is Medicine without effective antibiotics.

LINKED ARTICLES
This article is part of a themed issue on Respiratory Pharmacology. To view the other articles in this issue visit
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2011.163.issue-1

Abbreviations
DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid; HAP, Hospital acquired pneumonia; HIV/AIDS, human immunodeficiency/ acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome; MRSA, methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus; RNA, ribonucleic acide; spp, species; TB,
tuberculosis; VAP Ventilator associated pneumonia

Introduction (Watson, 2008). In the short term, according to the Infectious

The future of modern medicine depends upon effective anti-
biotics (So et al., 2010). The world produced more than 20
novel classes of antibiotics between 1930 and 1962 (Coates
et al., 2002; Powers, 2004). Since then, only two new classes
of antibiotics have been marketed (Butler and Buss, 2006;
Hair and Kean, 2007; Zappia et al., 2007). Numerous ana-
logues of existing classes have reached the market in this time
period. Meanwhile, multi-drug-resistant bacteria (superbugs)
have emerged throughout the world (Levy and Marshall,
2004), and now half the deaths from clinical infection in
Europe are associated with multi-drug-resistant bacteria
Diseases Society of America (IDSA, 2010) at least another 10
antibiotics, which are active against superbugs, are required
to reach the market within the next 10 years. In the longer
term, novel classes of antibiotics will be needed, but how
many? The answer to this question is unknown. However, on
the basis that most classes of antibiotics now have substantial
resistance problems, at least for some species of bacteria, a
new class, together with its analogues, might remain useful
for 50 years. This would mean that the 20 classes which
entered the market between 1930 and 1960 lasted for an
average of 50 years. This assumption would lead to the con-
clusion that it is likely that the world will need a further 20

184 British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) 163 184–194 © 2011 The Authors
British Journal of Pharmacology © 2011 The British Pharmacological Society

New Classes
Marketed Needed
[-----20-----] [--2--] [-------------20?-----------][----------- 20?----------------]
Year:
1940—50—60—70—80—90—2000—10—20—30—40—50—60—70—80—90—2100—10
Figure 1
The number of new classes of antibiotics which have reached the
market, and predictions of novel classes of antibiotics which are
needed during the next 100 years.
novel classes of antibiotics to support modern medicine
during the next 50 years (see Figure 1). Some bacterial infec-
tions, such as gram-negatives, are already very difficult to
treat, for example, metallo-b-lactamase producing pathogens
which neutralize carbapenems (Kumarasamy et al., 2010),
while others, such as gram-positive Staphylococcal infections
like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are still
susceptible to a range of old and new antibiotics (Boucher
et al., 2009; Walkey et al., 2010). Thus, the need is critical for
some gram-negatives, but less so for gram-positives. However,
the world’s capacity for antibiotic discovery is already falling
behind the rate of emergence of bacterial resistance, and so, is
it likely that another 20 new classes of antibiotics will reach
the market within 50 years, and perhaps, a further 20 classes
between 50 and 100 years from now? Figure 1 depicts a line
drawing of the number of new classes that reached the
market between the 1940s and 1960s, the two new classes
since 2000, and projections into the future of 20 new classes
for the next 50 years, and 20 further classes required to
support medicine in 50–100 years from now. Although these
are only projections, they are drawn upon past performance
of the pharmaceutical industry and upon the relentless emer-
gence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Whether or not the
actual numbers of new classes required proves to be accurate,
and whether the goal of 20 more classes in the next 50 years
is achievable, there is clearly an urgent need for new classes of
antibiotics. However, the production of only two new classes
of antibiotics in the last 50 years suggests that it may be very
difficult to produce enough new classes of compounds to
support modern medicine during the next 50 years.
The issues
Antibiotic discovery is the key to the continuance of modern
medicine (So et al., 2010). Why is the pharmaceutical indus-
try producing fewer new antibiotic classes now, when the
need is increasing? The reason for the lack of new classes is
not clear, but the following will be discussed later in this
paper: there may be a shortage of new metabolic targets
(Becker et al., 2006). Marketing of analogues is more finan-
cially feasible than developing new classes (Devasahayam
et al., 2010), and it used to be thought that current antibiotics
would last almost indefinitely (reviewed in Coates et al.,
2002). The numbers of major pharmaceutical companies
which are engaged in antibiotic discovery decreased substan-
New antibiotic classes are urgently needed
BJP
tially over the past two to three decades; now, only five
remain active in the field (Boucher et al., 2009). Governments
did not increase funding for antibiotic discovery, including
education in this field, fast enough to cope with the rise in
antibiotic resistance (House of Lords, 1998). This is a major
concern for many countries. Meanwhile, regulatory require-
ments increased, which has elevated the costs of developing
drugs, and the profits from competing products led pharma-
ceutical companies away from the antibiotic field.
Why is the scope for analogue
development limited?
Table 1 shows the number of analogues which have been
developed in each class of antibiotics. Although there is more
scope for further analogue development, it seems that such
an approach is more feasible for some classes than others,
cephalosporins, penicillins and quinolones being the most
successful, as there are sites in the scaffolds for easy modifi-
cation. However, new analogues based on one core eventually
become too difficult or too expensive to make, particularly
when faced with new antibiotic resistance mechanisms.
New classes
Can we produce new classes of antibiotics many times faster
than we have achieved over the past 50 years? Although only
two new classes of antibiotics were marketed in the past 10
years, this shows it is still possible to discover and market new
classes. It also suggests that the reason for the lack of new
class development between 1962 and 2000 was that pharma-
ceutical companies were concentrating on analogue develop-
ment, perhaps because the toxicity risks associated with
analogues is lower than that for new classes. Whether it will
be possible to increase antibiotic class discovery to the level it
was between 1940 and 1960, is another matter. It may be
difficult to do so, based upon the possibility that most of the
easy-to-discover antibiotics have already been marketed.
Also, the workforce in companies and in the university sector
need to be re-skilled in microbiology and pharmacology, with
particular emphasis on antibiotic discovery, and this will take
decades to achieve and will be very expensive. Most govern-
ment funding concentrates on the pathogenesis of infectious
disease, and while this is important, if new antibiotics are to
emerge from the university sector, a higher proportion of the
funding must be allocated to antibiotic discovery and devel-
opment. Thus, to generate the number of new antibiotics
which are needed over the next 100 years, substantially
increased funding from industry and from government will
be required, and should be focused upon antibiotic discovery,
with less funding for microbial pathogenesis.
The emergence of antibiotic resistance is at the heart of
the gradual demise of the antibiotic era. Can we produce
antibiotics which induce resistance at a lower rate than exist-
ing antibiotics? This is a key question and will be addressed
further in the section on antibiotic resistance below.
The aims of this review are to discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of continuing antibiotic discovery in the tra-
ditional way, namely, more of the same, meaning analogue
development using the Fleming method. The role of the
relentless emergence of antibiotic resistance to all antibiotics
will also be discussed, as well as possible ways to design
British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) 163 184–194 185
 ARM Coates et al.
BJP
Table 1
Main classes of marketed and withdrawn antibiotics

Class examples

b-Lactams
Penicillins
Penicillin G, penicillin V, methicillin, oxacillin, cloxacillin, dicloxacillin, nafcillin, ampicillin, amoxicillin, carbenicillin, ticarcillin,
mezlocillin, piperacillin, azlocillin, temocillin
Cephalosporins
First generation Cephalothin, cephapirin, cephradine, cephaloridine, cefazolin
Second generation Cefamandole, cefuroxime, cephalexin, cefprozil, cefaclor, loracarbef, cefoxitin, cefmetazole
Third generation Cefotaxime, ceftizoxime, ceftriaxone, cefoperazone, ceftazidime, cefixime, cefpodoxime, ceftibuten, cefdinir
Fourth generation Cefpirome, cefepime
Fifth generation1 Ceftaroline2, ceftobiprole3
Carbapenems
Imipenem, meropenem, doripenem
Monobactams
Aztreonam
b-Lactamase inhibitors
Clavulanate, sulbactam, tazobactam
Aminoglycosides
Streptomycin, neomycin, kanamycin, paromomycin, gentamicin, tobramycin, amikacin, netilmicin, spectinomycin, sisomicin, dibekacin,
isepamicin
Tetracyclines
Tetracycline, chlortetracycline, demeclocycline, minocycline, oxytetracycline, methacycline, doxycycline, tigecycline
Rifamycins
Rifampicin (also called rifampin), rifapentine, rifabutin, bezoxazinorifamycin, rifaximin
Macrolides
Erythromycin, azithromycin, clarithromycin
Ketolides
Telithromycin
Lincosamides
Lincomycin, clindamycin
Glycopeptides
Vancomycin, teicoplanin, telavancin
Lipopeptides
Daptomycin
Streptogramins
Quinupristin, dalfopristin, pristinamycin
Sulphonamides
Sulphanilamide, para-aminobenzoic acid, sulfadiazine, sulfisoxazole, sulfamethoxazole, sulfathalidine
Oxazolidinones
Linezolid
Quinolones
Nalidixic acid, oxolinic acid, norfloxacin, pefloxacin, enoxacin, ofloxacin/levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, temafloxacin, lomefloxacin,
fleroxacin, grepafloxacin, sparfloxacin, trovafloxacin, clinafloxacin, gatifloxacin, moxifloxacin, sitafloxacin
Others
Metronidazole, polymyxin B, colistin, trimethoprim

1
Spectrum combines third generation gram-negatives with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and multidrug-resistant
Streptococcus pneumoniae.
2
Pending Federal Drugs Administration review.
3
Marketed in Canada and Switzerland; now withdrawn.

186 British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) 163 184–194


antibiotics which lead to a lower rate of emergence of resis-
tance. The merits of trying to discover new classes of antibi-
otics will be discussed, including ways in which this could be
achieved. Finally, the future direction of antibiotic discovery
will be covered, with advantages and disadvantages of differ-
ent routes.
More of the same
The traditional, and the most successful way of making anti-
biotics has been to find a natural product (Singh and Barrett,
2006) or, in a few cases, a chemically synthesized one
(Fernandes, 2006) by screening for activity against a bacterial
culture which is in log phase growth. For example, penicillin
(Fleming, 1929) was discovered by Alexander Fleming by
observing the antibacterial effect of the Penicillium fungus.
This discovery led to the creation of numerous analogues,
many of which were marketed (see Table 1). The pharmaceu-
tical industry was able to build the analogues in such a way
that they were active against penicillin-resistant bacteria. The
advantage of this route is that analogues tend to have a
similar solubility, protein binding and toxicity as the parent
compound. A further advance that was made was to add an
anti-bacterial resistance factor to the antibiotic, which ren-
dered it active in the patient. An example of this approach is
the addition of clavulanic acid, a beta-lactamase inhibitor, to
amoxicillin, which is marketed as Augmentin. The disadvan-
tage of these routes of development is that there is a limit to
the number of analogues which can be made from a single
chemical core, or ones which can counteract bacterial resis-
tance mechanisms, and eventually, bacteria can evolve resis-
tance beyond the scope of even the most ingenious medicinal
chemist. Other discoveries followed that of penicillin, the
most notable of which, in terms of analogue development,
was cephalosporins (see Table 1). Even today, cephalosporin
analogues are being developed with anti-superbug activity,
one of which, ceftaroline, is in pre-registration (see Table 2).
Clearly, there is some scope for more analogue development,
and a new trimethoprim derivative, iclaprim, was recently
rejected by the Federal Drugs Administration (FDA) for failure
to demonstrate non-inferiority. However, it is also clear that
some antibiotic families are more amenable to analogue
development than others. For instance (Table 1), the most
prolific number of analogues has been made using the
cephalosporin and penicillin cores, but the quinolone and
aminoglycoside cores have also been very productive. Unfor-
tunately, resistance arises to all these compounds, and thus
analogue development merely ‘buys time’ until the discovery
of the next novel class. However, in our view, more analogues
are likely to be marketed in the next 20 years. Table 2 shows
the antibiotics which are in development and which are
accompanied by information in the public domain. It can be
seen that although few new classes are represented, there are
some significant improvements. Concern has to be noted
that pleuromutilins, which are new to human therapy but
have been used in veterinary medicine for about 30 years, are
susceptible to the cfr plasmid-mediated resistance which
affects virtually all antibiotics that target the 50S ribosomal
subunit. In this review, we do not count pleuromutilins as a
new class because they have been widely used for decades.
New antibiotic classes are urgently needed
BJP
Another potential new class, PDF inhibitors, has been aban-
doned by a number of companies over the past decade
because of resistance emergence.
For gram-negatives, the non-b-lactamase b-lactamase-
inhibitor from Novexel has broad coverage against class A, C
and some class D, such as OXA-48, but not those of Acineto-
bacter; it has no activity against metallo-b-lactamases. Merck
& Co. also have a similar analogue, but there is less informa-
tion available in public domain about this molecule.
The siderophore monobactams from Basilea and Pfizer
have similar structures but seem to have different activities,
especially against Acinetobacter spp. The combination of
BAL30072 with meropenem seems to cope with many of the
b-lactam-resistance mechanisms in gram-negatives: this is an
example of more than just inhibiting resistance mechanisms,
but of broadening the spectrum. However, none of the devel-
opments is a panacea. Even the new class from Anacor/
GlaxoSmithKline has gaps, especially Acinetobacter spp. The
neoglycoside from Achaogen is immune to nearly, but not all,
the aminoglycoside modifying enzymes found in Enterobac-
teriaceae but is not active against Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
It should be noted that in Table 2, the indications for
products at preclinical, Phase I and Phase II are largely
guesswork
Resistance – the antibiotic slayer
The Achilles heel of antibiotics is resistance development of
target pathogenic bacteria. Within 2 years of marketing, resis-
tance is usually observed, even to new classes of compounds
(Bax et al., 1998). When the proportion of bacteria, which
cause specific types of clinical infection, rises to 20% or more,
the antibiotic becomes poorly effective for that indication
and may be withdrawn. This is a unique feature of anti-
microbial drugs, namely that they become ineffective over
time, something which does not affect other drug groups
such as cardiovascular, central nervous system and anti-
inflammatories. However, some bacteria mutate slowly, while
others do so faster or acquire resistance elements from other
species. For example, some strains of Neisseria meningitidis (du
Plessis et al., 2008) still show only a reduced susceptibility to
penicillin, while for S. aureus (Chambers and Deleo, 2009)
resistance to penicillin appeared in the early 1940s, shortly
after its introduction into the market, and resistance to
methicillin was recorded just 1 year after its introduction. In
2005 in the USA, it has been estimated that S. aureus caused
10 800 deaths, of which 5500 were due to MRSA (Klein et al.,
2007). The majority of hospital infections in USA are caused
by the so-called ESKAPE pathogens (Rice, 2010), for which
new antibiotics are urgently needed. These are Enterococcus
faecium, S. aureus, Acinetobacter baumanii, Klebsiella pneumo-
niae, P. aeruginosa and Enterobacter species. Gram-negative bac-
teria are particularly troublesome in this regard, and have
become progressively resistant to each antibiotic class. Now
Enterobacteriaceae (Kumarasamy et al., 2010), which are
resistant to carbapenem conferred by New Delhi metallo-b-
lactamase 1, are being isolated from patients in several coun-
tries. Major efforts are being adopted by many countries to
prevent such infections (Coates and Hu, 2008) by improve-
ments in infection control in hospitals, withdrawal of
British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) 163 184–194 187
 Table 2
Antibacterial compounds in development BJP
Class Product Spectrum Iv/oral Indications Phase Company (Licensor)

Glycopeptide Dalbavancin Gram-positive (excluding VRE) IV; once-weekly cSSTI Phase III Durata Therapeutics
(Pfizer)
Glycopeptide Telavancin Gram-positive (excluding VRE) IV cSSTI and HAP Marketed for SSTI in Astellas (Theravance)
USA; HAP approval
ARM Coates et al.

stalled at FDA
Glycopeptide Oritavancin Gram-positive (including VRE) IV; single dose cSSTI Phase III The Medicines
treatment Company (Lilly)
Cephalosporin Ceftaroline Gram-positive and gram-negative IV SSTI, CAP Pre-registration Forest (Cerexa)
excluding ESBLs etc. and
non-fermenters
Glycopeptide- TD-1792 Gram-positive IV SSTI, HAP Phase IIa Theravance
cephalosporin hybrid
Ketolide Cethromycin Gram-positive and respiratory tract Oral and IV Community-acquired RTIs Phase III Advanced Life Sciences

188 British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) 163 184–194

infection pathogens biothreat pathogens (Abbott)
Ketolide EDP-420 Gram-positive and respiratory tract Oral Community-acquired RTIs Phase II/III Enanta (Shionogi)
infection pathogens
Fluoroketolide Solithromycin Gram-positive and respiratory tract IV/oral Community-acquired RTIs Phase I/II Cempra (Optimer)
infection pathogens biothreat pathogens
Pleuromutilin BC-3781 Gram-positive and respiratory tract Oral IV Community-acquired RTIs Phase II Nabriva
infection pathogens and SSTIs Preclinical
Peptide deformylase GSK1322322 Gram-positive and Respiratory tract Oral Community-acquired RTIs Phase I GlaxoSmithKline
inhibitor (new class) pathogens and SSTIs
Oxazolidinone Torezolid Gram-positive (including linezolid- and IV/oral cSSTI Phase IIa Trius (DongA)
daptomycin resistant strains)
Oxazolidinone Radezolid Gram-positive (including linezolid- and IV/oral SSTI Phase IIa Rib-X
daptomycin resistant strains)
Oxazolidinone PNU-100480 TB Oral TB Phase I Pfizer
FabI Inhibitor AFN-1252 Staphylococci Oral Staph infections Phase I Affinium
(new class)
FabI Inhibitor MUT056399 Staphylococci IV Staph infections Phase I FAB Pharma
(new class)
Aminomethylcycline PTK0796 Gram-positive, RTI and SSTI pathogens IV/oral cSSTI, CAP Phase III Novartis (Paratek)
(tetracycline)
Fluoroquinolone Delafloxacin Broad-spectrum including IV/oral cSSTI, Phase III Rib-X
fluoroquinolone-resistant MRSA
Fluoroquinolone Finafloxacin Broad-spectrum; enhanced activity at Merlion
acid pH
 Table 2
Continued.

Class Product Spectrum Iv/oral Indications Phase Company (Licensor)

Fluoroquinolone JNJ-Q2 Enhanced gram-positive activity including IV/oral Phase I J&J

fluoroquinolone-resistance-resistant MRSA
Fluorocycline (tetracycline) TP-434 Broad gram-positive, -negative and anaerobic IV/oral cSSTI, cIAI Phase I Tetraphase
activity including Acinetobacter but not P.
aeruginosa, less active versus Proteae and
some K. pneumoniae
Aminoglycoside ACHN-490 MDR enterobacteriaceae and S. aureus, IV cUTI, cIAI Phase I Achaogen
including aminoglycoside-resistant and
metallo-ß-lactamase producers
leucyl-tRNA synthase GSK2251052 MDR enterobacteriaceae and P. aeruginosa IV Anacor/GSK
inhibitor (new class)
Penicillin CXA-101 MDR P. aeruginosa and susceptible IV cUTI Phase II Cubist
enterobacteriaceae
Penicillin/b-lactamase- CXA-101 /tazobactam MDR P. aeruginosa and enterobacteriaceae, IV cUTI, cIAI Phase I Cubist
inhibitor (CXA-201) excluding metallo-ß-lactamases VAP
Non-b-lactam b-lactamase- NXL104 Class A, C and some class D b-lactamases, AstraZeneca (Novexel)
inhibitor (new class) including OXA-48
Cephalosporin/b- Ceftaroline/ NXL104 MRSA and MDR enterobacteriaceae, excluding IV cUTI, SSTI, CAP Phase II ready AstraZeneca/Forest
lactamase-inhibitor metallo-ß-lactamases
Cephalosporin/b- Ceftazidime/ NXL104 MDR P. aeruginosa and enterobacteriaceae, IV cUTI, SSTI, VAP Phase III ready AstraZeneca/Forest
lactamase-inhibitor excluding metallo-ß-lactamases
Non-b-lactam MK-7655 Class A and C b-lactamases Merck & Co
b-lactamase-inhibitor
(new class)
Carbapenem/b- Imipenem/ MK-7655 MDR P. aeruginosa and enterobacteriaceae, IV cUTI, cIAI, HAP/VAP Phase II ready Merck & Co
lactamase-inhibitor excluding metallo-ß-lactamases;
Acinetobacter
Sulfactam (siderophore BAL30072 MDR P. aeruginosa Acinetobacter including IV Preclinical Basilea
monobactam) metallo-ß-lactamases and
enterobacteriaceae
Monobactam/ carbapenem BAL30072/ meropenem Most MDR gram-negatives including resistant IV cUTI, Hospital-acquired Preclinical Basilea
Enterobacteriaceae and anaerobes cIAI, VAP
Monocarbam (siderophore MC-1 MDR P. aeruginosa including IV cUTI, Hospital-acquired Preclinical Pfizer
monobactam) metallo-ß-lactamases S. maltophilia and cIAI, VAP
enterobacteriaceae
New antibiotic classes are urgently needed

These data are based upon information in the public domain.

Products shaded blue = primarily gram-positive; unshaded = broad(ish)-spectrum; shaded red = MDR gram-negatives.
MDR, multidrug resistant; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
BJP

British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) 163 184–194 189

 ARM Coates et al.
BJP
vulnerable classes of antibiotics, restrictions in the use of Stage Compounds Marketed (prediction)*
antibiotics and the introduction of new vaccines.
No (new classes)
However, superbugs which are resistant to key classes of
antibiotics continue to emerge. Some antibiotics induce resis-
tance readily, for example, rifampicin (Lambert, 2005), while Phase I 11(2) 1(0)---------------------]
others, such as those which target the cell membrane, may do
Phase II 8(0) 2(0)---------------------]
so more slowly (Zhanel et al., 2008). The key mechanisms
of genetic resistance are (Coates et al., 2002): (i) bacteria Phase III 6(0) 3(0)---------------------]
can inactivate the antibiotic by producing, for example,
Preregistration 2(0) 2(0)
b-lactamase which degrades the b-lactam ring which is a key
part of penicillins and cephalosporins; (ii) reduce membrane
permeability to the antibiotic; (iii) increase the efflux of anti- Year 2010--------------------2015--------------------2020--------
biotic from the cell; (iv) overproduce the target enzyme; (v)
bypass the inhibited step; and (vi) alter the site of action of
the antibiotic. Some antibiotics, notably fluoroquinolones, Figure 2
induce the SOS response, which increases the error rate of The number of systemic compounds and classes in development and
DNA replication and speeds the development of resistance predictions of the number which will reach the market. Based on
(Da Re et al., 2009) estimates of drugs in development which are published in the public
In addition, before the onset of genetic resistance, bacte- domain. New classes are in brackets. *Assumptions: percent of com-
pounds which reach the market (CMR International 2009) – 6.25%
ria can survive antibiotic treatment by entering into a slow or
in Phase I, 25% in Phase II, 50% in Phase III and 75% in Pre-
non-multiplying state (Coates et al., 2002). It is thought that
registration. Phase II includes drugs which are in Phase I/II, II ready,
about 60% of all clinical infections contain bacteria in this II and IIa. Phase III includes drugs in II/III, III ready and III. Market
state (Coates and Hu, 2008). Commensal bacteria, for predictions are shown with – which indicates a range of years due to
example, those which naturally live on the skin, in the current uncertainty of the length of time – which is required to
mouth, nose and intestines contain large numbers of complete Phase III trials, for example for hospital-acquired
antibiotic-resistant organisms, and these may be a source of pneumonia/ventilator-associated pneumonia.
antibiotic-resistance markers for pathogenic bacteria (Gillings
et al., 2008). Also, about half of all antibiotics which are used
the antibiotics in clinical development, which appear in
each year in the world are consumed by animals. This is also
Table 2 and Figure 2, are based upon information which is in
thought to be a source of antibiotic resistance in humans,
the public domain. However, this may be an underestimate,
although this is disputed by some (Soulsby, 2008). Recently
because many companies do not publish data in this area.
(van Cleef et al., 2010), MRSA has been found in half of
Figure 2 shows that there are at least 27 anti-bacterial com-
the pig farms in Europe and has spread to pig farmers and
pounds which are in clinical development, of which 11 are in
their families, but has not, as of yet, spread into the general
Phase I clinical trials, 8 in Phase II, but only 6 in Phase III and
population.
2 at the pre-registration stage. Of the antibiotics in clinical
These data suggest that antibiotic resistance should not be
development, two belong to new classes. There are no antibi-
considered, particularly in gram-negatives, to be isolated to a
otics against the major gram-negative pathogens K. pneumo-
small number of superbugs. Rather, it is part of a much larger
niae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumanii in Phase IIb and III.
picture, namely the whole of the bacterial kingdom which
Furthermore, there are only a few compounds against these
seems to operate cooperatively, horizontally transferring anti-
pathogens in earlier stages of development. Most of these
biotic resistance containing DNA between different species.
compounds are analogues of existing marketed antibiotics.
Also, the resistant bacteria are fit to be able to survive and
Because there are no new class in the later stages of develop-
persist for a long period of time, even though no antibiotic
ment, Phase II, III and pre-registration (Figure 2), there may be
selective pressure is present (Andersson, 2006)
no new classes in the market in the short term. Although there
are two potential new class compounds in early clinical Phase
I development, the high attrition rate, particularly for new
Novel classes of antibiotics
classes, means that the odds are against these compounds
reaching the market, and it is possible that no new classes will
Novel classes of antibiotics are urgently needed for the future.
reach the market within 10 years. In the longer term, during
The two new classes of antibiotics which have been intro-
the next 20 years, the likelihood of discovering 20 novel
duced into the market, oxazolidinone (linezolid by Pfizer) and
classes including many broad spectrum antibiotics, similar to
cyclic lipopeptide (daptomycin by Cubist) are active against
the achievements in the 1940–1960s, seems to be remote,
gram-positive bacteria, such as MRSA, but there are no new
particularly for multi-drug-resistant gram-negatives.
classes in Phase II or III clinical trials, and none in the pre-
registration stage (see Figure 2). There are two new classes in
Phase I and a small number in the pre-clinical and discovery
phases, for example, a new class which targets type IIA topoi- Why is there a shortage of new classes
somerases with a new mechanism of action (Bax et al., 2010). of antibiotics in development?
It is difficult to estimate the number of drugs in preclinical
development, because most are not published, so no attempt The risk and cost of developing a new class is considerably
has been made to do so in this review. It should be noted that greater than that of an analogue. For example, the starting

190 British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) 163 184–194


point for an analogue is likely to give rise to compounds
which are soluble and are not toxic, on the grounds that the
parent molecule has these characteristics. Toxic side effects
are a common cause of failure of a compound to proceed past
Phase I clinical trials. In contrast, a new class of compound
has unknown toxic potential, and may have chemico-
physical features which make them unsuitable for drug
development.
However, there may be a more fundamental reason why
so few new classes have reached the market during the past
50 years. Simply, it may be more difficult to find new classes
which are broad spectrum, than it was in the golden age of
antibiotic discovery. It has been suggested (Becker et al.,
2006) that anti-bacterial classes have been developed and
marketed already against all the main metabolic pathways,
and that there are no more available. In other words, it is
possible that all the classes of broad-spectrum antibacterials
have been discovered. If this were to be the case, the antibi-
otic era is likely to fade away, sooner rather than later.
Another blow to the antibiotic discovery field is the con-
siderable investment which the pharmaceutical industry
invested in the genomics approach (Brotz-Oesterhelt and
Sass, 2010) that failed to deliver a new class into the market.
This approach uses bacterial DNA sequence data to predict
enzymatic pathways which can be inhibited by novel classes
of compounds.
The recent difficulties with registration of antibiotics are
also likely to suppress the enthusiasm of large pharmaceutical
companies to enter the field. For example, the FDA in the
USA, having agreed to the protocol for telavancin hospital-
acquired pneumonia (HAP)/ventilator-associated pneumonia
(VAP) studies with clinical response as the primary endpoint,
the agency requested additional data and analyses to support
an evaluation of all-cause mortality as the primary efficacy
endpoint. As a result, the company may have to conduct new
studies. Initial applications for dalbavancin and iclaprim
have also been rejected by the FDA.
The requirement of the FDA for a smaller non-inferiority
margin and to restrict nosocomial pneumonia trials to VAP is
unlikely to result in new agents for multidrug resistant (MDR)
gram-negative pneumonia. For a non-inferiority margin of
7%, the cost of a HAP/VAP study would total $600 million
and take 8–10 years for enrolment, even using hundreds of
centres. This would double if the trial were to be VAP only.
Further regulatory difficulties are envisaged that will discour-
age the development of MDR-gram-negative antibiotics.
With no standard therapy, non-inferiority studies are not
possible; historical controls are considered irrelevant and
superiority studies are not ethical as patients cannot be
randomized to ineffective therapy for infections with high
mortality.
Most large pharmaceutical companies have now left the
antibiotic discovery field. This has led to de-skilling of the
workforce in the industry over the past 30 years. In parallel,
many universities have closed academic departments
which underpin antibiotic discovery and development. The
net effect of the de-skilling in antibiotic discovery world-
wide, compared with the 1940–1960s, is that it will take
decades to rebuild the teaching and training which is
needed to support the discovery of numerous new classes of
antibiotics.
New antibiotic classes are urgently needed
BJP
Future direction
If bacteria continue to develop new resistance mechanisms,
and if the pharmaceutical industry produces novel classes of
antibiotics at the existing rate, the future for medicine is
bleak. In our view, it is unlikely that the industry will dra-
matically increase the rate of production of new classes of
antibiotics. This means that the present global antibiotic
discovery process is probably unsustainable in the long
term.
How can we improve this situation?
Reduce the rate of emergence of resistance
The most important step would be to break the cycle of
marketing a new antibiotic, followed by resistance arising
within a few years. Tuberculosis (TB) chemotherapy (Mitchi-
son, 2005) has addressed this issue by using combinations of
antibiotics which reduce the rate of emergence of resistance
in the target pathogen. However, multi-drug-resistant TB is
on the increase, and so, while this approach can slow the
emergence of resistance, it cannot stop it. However, combi-
nation therapy is an approach which could be applied more
widely for the treatment of pyogenic bacteria. A potential
disadvantage of this approach is that it could increase the rate
of resistance emergence in normal bacterial flora, and these
bacteria might then transfer resistance to pathogens.
Included in this combination approach is the use of inhibi-
tors such as clavulanic acid which block the action of bacte-
rial b-lactamase (Brogden et al., 1981). Another potential way
to deal with this issue is to develop antibiotics which induce
resistance at a lower rate than existing antibiotics. For
example, some compounds which target complex bacterial
systems such as the membrane (Tenover, 2006; Hurdle et al.,
2011), may induce resistance less readily than those such as
rifampicin (Falagas et al., 2007), which inhibit single enzymes
like RNA polymerase. Presumably, because synthesis of the
membrane requires so many enzymes, bacteria cannot easily
produce mutants with altered membranes. While this is a
plausible hypothesis, resistance to daptomycin, a drug which
targets bacterial membranes, is already occurring (Sakoulas
et al., 2006).
Increase the rate of production of new
classes of antibiotics
Historically, natural compounds have been the source of
most new classes of antibiotics. The search for new classes
needs to be intensified in both natural and chemical potential
sources and broadened to include novel approaches. For
example, an actinomyte from the deep ocean has recently
been found which produces a novel antibiotic called abysso-
mycin (Riedlinger et al., 2004). Other sources such as plants
(Mitscher et al., 1987), reptiles (Wang et al., 2008) and
mammals (Flores-Villasenor et al., 2010) are also being
searched. Another possible source of new classes is non-
cultivable bacteria (Daniel, 2004), which constitute the
majority of bacterial species. It has been suggested that the
antibiotic-producing genes of these bacteria could be
British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) 163 184–194 191
 ARM Coates et al.
BJP
expressed in cultivable bacteria, and so new antibiotic classes
might be produced. Chemical libraries are also being screened
with the hope of finding new classes of anti-bacterials. In
addition, the genomics approach (Payne et al., 2007) in
which essential enzyme pathways in bacteria are targeted by
inhibitors, may provide new classes, although none have
been marketed so far. A further new method which targets
non-multiplying bacteria (Hu et al., 2010) may also have
potential, and a new class topical compound derived in this
way is now in Phase III clinical trials, but no new compounds
have been marketed using this approach thus far.
A crisis of this magnitude clearly needs government
incentives, although money alone will be insufficient. There
needs to be a political appreciation globally that infections
(including those of the lower respiratory tract, human immu-
nodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome,
diarrhoea, TB, malaria), of which antibiotic-resistant
microbes are an important part, kill more people than heart
attacks or strokes (Lopez and Mathers, 2006). The current
effects of climate change on health are more difficult to judge,
but if predictions are accurate, deaths due to infections such
as diarrhoeal disease may increase as a result of
climate*induced changes (IPCC, 2007). In addition, it needs
to be understood that antibiotics are not like other groups of
drugs such as anti-inflammatory agents as they become
redundant in a few decades and so have to be continually
replaced. Many governments already provide financial incen-
tives, such as grants to academia and industry in the field of
infectious disease. However, thus far, an insufficient propor-
tion of these grants have been allocated to academia and
industry to stimulate the generation of enough new classes of
antibiotics with which to counteract the tide of antibiotic
resistance.
The pharmaceutical industry needs to be encouraged to
return to the antibiotic discovery arena. Only the prospect
of profit from a marketed antibiotic product will persuade
them to do this. The simplest way forward would be for
governments to agree to a cost per unit for novel antibiotics
which is comparable to anti-cancer drugs. Patent protection
should be specifically extended for antibiotics on the
grounds so that this will encourage companies to discover
novel antibiotics, and the enhanced price should reduce
the usage of the product and should extend the life of the
antibiotic.
Universities should be encouraged to rebuild their antibi-
otic discovery sectors and to replace lost skills in this field.
Clearly this will take decades, but antibiotic discovery is
something that will need to be continued into the foreseeable
future.
The considerable resources of the charitable sector should
be channelled in part into antibiotic discovery for new classes
of drugs against gram-negative bacteria, in a similar way to
that for the TB and malaria programmes.
Infection control also has a role, as have better diagnostics
and new vaccines.
A major change is now needed in the regulation of anti-
biotics. The rules are too restrictive and need to be relaxed for
this group of drugs because the world is running out of
antibiotics. For example, in pivotal clinical trials, specific
surrogate endpoints could be allowed, such as a microbiologi-
cal endpoint, rather than a clinical endpoint.
192 British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) 163 184–194
Conclusion
The existing antibiotic pipeline and the infrastructure which
underpins it, is not sufficient to cope with the emergence of
resistance worldwide, particularly among gram-negative bac-
teria. If the antibiotic discovery process continues at the same
rate as at present ‘More of the same’, the antibiotic era will
end within a few decades, at least for many gram-negative
infections.
Potential ways forward include the use of combinations of
antibiotics to reduce the rate of emergence of resistance.
Concentrating on the discovery of compounds that target
complex bacterial systems, such as membranes, could also
reduce resistance emergence.
In the long term, many more new classes of antibiotics are
needed. This will require the intervention of governments
worldwide, with increased grants, subsidies, tax incentives
and an increase in the unit price of new classes of antibiotics.
Universities, charities and regulatory bodies will also need to
change in order to encourage antibiotic discovery.
Acknowledgements
AC and YH would like to acknowledge financial support from
the Medical Research Council, European Commission and
the Burton Trust.
Conflicts of interests
AC is founder, director and shareholder of Helperby Thera-
peutics Group Ltd which makes new antibiotics targeted at
non-multiplying bacteria. AC and YH receive grants from
Helperby Therapeutics.
References
Andersson DI (2006). The biological cost of mutational antibiotic
resistance: any practical conclusions? Curr Opin Microbiol 9:
461–465.
Bax RP, Anderson R, Crew J, Fletcher P, Johnson T, Kaplan E et al.
(1998). Antibiotic resistance – what can we do? Nat Med 4:
545–546.
Bax BD, Chan PF, Eggleston DS, Fosberry A, Gentry DR, Gorrec F
et al. (2010). Type 11A topoisomerase inhibition by a new class of
antibacterial agents. Nature 19: 935–940.
Becker D, Selbach M, Rollenhagen C, Ballmaier M, Meyer TF,
Mann M et al. (2006). Robust salmonella metabolism limits
possibilities for new antimicrobials. Nature 16: 303–307.
Boucher HW, Talbot GH, Bradley JS, Edwards JE, Gilbert D, Rice LB
et al. (2009). Bad bugs, no drugs: no ESKAPE! An update from the
Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 48: 1–12.
Brogden RN, Carmine A, Heel RC, Morley PA, Speight TM,
Avery GS (1981). Combination clavulanic acid. Drugs 22: 337–362.

Brotz-Oesterhelt H, Sass P (2010). Postgenomic stategies in
antibacterial drug discovery. Future Microbiol 5: 1553–1579.
Butler MS, Buss AD (2006). Natural products – the future scaffolds
for novel antibiotics? Biochem Pharmacol 71: 919–929.
Chambers HF, Deleo FR (2009). Resistance Staph aureus to
penicillin and methicillin. Nat Rev Microbiol 7: 629–641.
van Cleef BA, Verkade EJ, Wulf MW, Buiting AG, Voss A,
Huijsdens XW et al. (2010). Prevalence of livestock-associated MRSA
in communities with high pig-densities in the Netherlands. PLoS
ONE 5: e9385.
Coates AR, Hu Y (2008). Targeting non-multiplying organisms as a
way to develop novel antimicrobials. Trends Pharmacol Sci 29:
143–150.
Coates A, Hu Y, Bax R, Page C (2002). The future challenges facing
the development of new antimicrobial drugs. Nature Rev Drug
Discovery 1: 895–910.
CMR International (2009). Available at http://cmr.thomsonreuters.
com/pdf/cmrfb-brochure.pdf (accessed February 2011).
Da Re S, Garnier F, Guerin E, Campoy S, Denis F, Ploy MC (2009).
The SOS response promotes qnrB quinolone-resistance determinant
expression. EMBO Rep 10: 929–933.
Daniel R (2004). The soil metagenome – a rich resource for the
discovery of novel natural products. Curr Opin Biotechnol 15:
199–204.
Devasahayam G, Scheld WM, Hoffman PS (2010). Newer
antibacterial drugs for a new century. Expert Opin Investig Drugs
19: 215–234.
Falagas ME, Bliziotis IA, Fragoulis KN (2007). Oral rifampin for
eradication of Staphylococcus aureus carriage from healthy and sick
populations: a systematic review of the evidence from comparative
trials. Am J Infect Control 35: 106–114.
Fernandes P (2006). Antibacterial discovery and development – the
failure of success? Nat Biotechnol 24: 1497–1503.
Fleming A (1929). On the antibacterial action of cultures of a
penicillium, with special reference to their use in the isolation of
B.influenza. Br J Exp Path 10: 226–236.
Flores-Villasenor H, Canizalez-Roman A, Reyes-Lopez M, Nazmi K,
de la Garza M, Zazueta-Beltran J et al. (2010). Bactericidal effect of
bovine lactoferrin, Lfcin, Lfampin and Lfchimera on antibiotic-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. Biometals 23:
569–578.
Gillings M, Boucher Y, Labbate M, Holmes A, Krishnan S, Holley M
et al. (2008). The evolution of class 1 integrons and the rise of
antibiotic resistance. J Bacteriol 190: 5095–5100.
Hair PI, Kean SJ (2007). Daptomycin: a review of its use in the
management of complicated skin and soft-tissue infections and
Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Drugs 67: 1483–1512.
House of Lords (1998). Inquiry into antimicrobial resistance.
Commun Dis Rep CRD Wkly 24: 8.
Hu Y, Shamaei-Tousi A, Liu Y, Coates A (2010). A new approach for
the discovery of antibiotics by targeting non-multiplying bacteria: a
novel topical antibiotic for staphylococcal infections. PLoS ONE 5:
e11818.
Hurdle JG, O’Neill AJ, Chopra I, Lee RE (2011). Targeting bacterial
membrane function: an underexploited mechanism for treating
persistent infections. Nat Rev Microbiol 9: 62–75.
New antibiotic classes are urgently needed
BJP
IDSA (2010). ID Physicians call for 10 new antibiotics by 2020.
Available at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/
652237 (accessed 19 February 2010).
IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution
of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of
the intergovernmental panel on clinate change. In: Pachauri RK,
Reisinger A (eds). Core Writing Team. IPCC: Geneva, p. 104.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publicationsanddata/publicationsipccfourth
assessmentreportsynthesisreport.htm.
Klein E, Smith DL, Laxminarayan R (2007). Hospitalizations and
deaths caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus,
United States, 1999–2005. Emerg Infect Dis 13: 1840–1846.
Kumarasamy KK, Toleman MA, Walsh TR, Bagaria J, Butt F,
Balakrishnan R et al. (2010). Emergence of a new antibiotic
resistance mechanism in India, Pakistan, and the UK: a molecular,
biological and epidemiological study. Lancet Infect Dis 10:
597–602.
Lambert PA (2005). Bacterial resistance to antibiotics: modified
target sites. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 57: 1471–1485.
Levy SB, Marshall B (2004). Antibacterial resistance worldwide:
causes, challenges and responses. Nat Med 10: S122–S129.
Lopez AD, Mathers CD (2006). Measuring the global burden of
disease and epidemiological transitions: 2002–2030. Ann Trop Med
Parasitol 100: 481–499.
Mitchison DA (2005). The diagnosis and therapy of tuberculosis
during the past 100 years. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 171: 699–706.
Mitscher LA, Drake S, Gollapudi SR, Okwute SK (1987). A modern
look at folkloric use of anti-infective agents. J Nat Prod 50:
1025–1040.
Payne DJ, Gwynn MN, Holmes DJ, Pompliano DL (2007). Drugs for
bad bugs: confronting the challenges of antibacterial discovery. Nat
Rev Drug Discov 6: 29–40.
du Plessis M, von Gottberg A, Cohen C, de Gouveia L, Klugman KP
(2008). Neisseria meningitidis intermediately resistant to penicillin
and causing invasive disease in South Africa in 2001 to 2005. J Clin
Microbiol 46: 3208–3214.
Powers JH (2004). Antimicrobial drug development – the past, the
present, and the future. Clin Microbiol Infect 4: 23–31.
Rice LB (2010). Progress and challenges in implementing the
research on ESKAPE pathogens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1:
S7–S10.
Riedlinger J, Reicke A, Zahner H, Krismer B, Bull AT, Maldonado LA
et al. (2004). Abyssomicins, inhibitors of the para-aminobenzoic
acid pathway produced by the marin Verrucosispora strain AB-
18-032. J Antibiot (Tokyo) 57: 271–279.
Sakoulas G, Alder J, Thauvin-Eliopoulos C, Moellering RC,
Eliopoulos GM (2006). Induction to daptomycin heterogeneous
susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus by exposure to vancomycin.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50: 1581–1585.
Singh SB, Barrett JF (2006). Empirical antibacterial drug discovery –
foundation in natural products. Biochem Pharmacol 30:
1996–1015.
So AD, Gupta N, Cars O (2010). Tackling antibiotic resistance. BMJ
Editorial 340: c2071.
Soulsby L (2008). The 2008 Garrod Lecture: antimicrobial
resistance-animals and the environment. J Antimicrob Chemother
62: 229–233.
British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) 163 184–194 193
 ARM Coates et al.
BJP
Tenover FC (2006). Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in
bacteria. Am J Infect Control 34: S3–10, S64–73.
Walkey AJ, O’Donnell MR, Wiener RS (2010). Linezolid versus
glycopeptide antibiotics for the treatment of suspected methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia:
a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chest 10:
1556.
Wang Y, Hong J, Liu X, Yang H, Liu R, Wu J et al. (2008). Snake
cathelicidin from Bungarus fasciatus is a potent peptide antibiotics.
PLoS ONE B3: e3217.
194 British Journal of Pharmacology (2011) 163 184–194
Watson R (2008). Multidrug resistance responsible for half of deaths
from healthcare associated infections in Europe. BMJ 336: 1266.
Zappia G, Menendez P, Monache GD, Misiti D, Nevola L, Botta B
(2007). The contribution of oxazolidinone frame to the biological
activity of pharmaceutical drugs and nature products. Mini Rev
Med Chem 7: 389–409.
Zhanel GG, Trapp S, Gin AS, DeCorby M, Lagace-Wiens PR,
Rubinstein E et al. (2008). Dalbavancin and telavancin: novel
lipoglycopeptides for the treatment of Gram-positive infections.
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 6: 67–81.